Singer Sewing Machine Early Serial Number Database

Calvin Armerding
ISMACS News
5/2024

Singer Serial Number Database: pre-1900

Welcome to the Singer Serial Number project. Let’s start with a bit of history. Regular collectors are probably aware that Singer serial numbers and model identification information is readily available for machines made starting in 1900, is posted in various places on the internet including on the ISMACS website at www.ismacs.com, and that Ken Giles created an excellent smartphone application, called the Singer Serial DB, available for both Android and Apple (iPad only) that allows quick and accurate identification from that serial number database. Although this database is not 100% accurate, any discrepancies are generally related to inaccurate information originally provided by the Singer Sewing Machine Company or to transcription errors.

For machines made prior to 1900, however, the story is slightly different. Let’s break that up into smaller bits.

Early history

Grace Rogers Cooper, The Invention of the Sewing Machine, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: 1968, p. 112, provided serial numbers from 1850 through 1877, including in her book two tables compiled by Frederick G. Bourne in 1895 from records of the Sewing-Machine Combination from 1853 through 1866 and from 1866 through 1876. These were numbers of machines licensed annually, not necessarily consecutive serial numbers. For machines manufactured after 1877, Cooper estimated by millions based on data submitted with patent models, again, total Singer production by calendar year, not sequential serial numbers per year. This lack of data left a significant hole in the information available to collectors, especially when compared to the relatively accurate and complete database that allowed collectors to identify both the year and model of a machine based solely on the serial number.

The beginning of the project

Collaboration between ISMACS and the Clydebank Museum really improved after a visit by Graham Forsdyke, Maggie Snell, and Martin Gregory to the museum in 2007. John Langdon joined the group in 2009. Given unlimited access to Clydebank's collections, John got his Singer project under way with great commitment. Martin’s interest was primarily in the engineering history of Singer. John's project was non-technical but the data from Clydebank provided many links in the story so that, between the two of them, they learned a lot. John died in 2020 (his obituary is in Journal 138 and available on the ISMACS website). He had been seriously ill with COPD for several years, and was still working on Singer in his last days (Martin and John were still emailing each other at midnight in case he did not last the night).

In an effort to determine when specific models were made and to fill in the gaps in the pre-1900 knowledge base, John Langdon began collecting confirmed pre-1900 serial numbers. I will refer to serial number allocations as “made” for the purposes of this database. It is generally accepted that Singer would often allocate blocks of serial numbers which were not actually used until those machines were needed so some production dates may actually fall in a different year than the indicated allocation. Some serial number sequences were also re-allocated as needed between factories, and between types and models.

In 2012 Bob Leininger joined the effort, contributing large lists of serial numbers to the project, and eventually taking over where John had left off after his passing. Starting with their own collections, soliciting submissions by friends and fellow collectors, and browsing online seller marketplaces, they were able to put together a list that, to date, includes almost 150 pages of confirmed serial numbers. From these numbers they were able to create speculative blocks of production. If, for example, serial number X, serial number X+4000, and two or three serials in that range are all Singer 27 models, it was possible to conclude with reasonable accuracy that all numbers in that range were most likely Singer 27 models.

The addition of accounting records, a new source

In 2020 Krisi Santilla who was researching early Singer records added to the work that John had started by contributing details from her analysis of Singer accounting records. She was able to add significant data to the earliest serial numbers listings, listings that by the very nature of their age are harder to find on still existing machines.

Two serial numbers?

Many early Singer machines, especially the Family (Turtleback) and Transverse Letter-A come with two (and sometimes three) serial numbers. The first is the serial number assigned by Singer to that machine, similar to the number that is stamped on all your newer machines.

On July 1, 1854, Isaac Singer, and Edward Clark, Singer’s partner and the company’s lawyer, signed an agreement with Howe and his partner, George Bliss. Singer and Clark gave the partners notes worth $15,000 for the 1500 machines sold previous to July 1st, 1854¹. They also agreed to pay ten dollars for each of the next thousand machines sold in the U.S. or its territories, with the royalty amount decreasing as sales numbers increased. After five thousand machines were sold, the price would drop to five dollars on each machine until the expiration of the license, which would be when the Howe patent or future renewals expired. Each machine was to be stamped with “Howes Patent Sept. 10, 1845”, and consecutively numbered beginning with number twenty two² in a “conspicuous and durable manner” in addition to I.M. Singer & Co.’s standard stamping of a serial number. Exported machines were to be stamped with the letter S as a private mark, and licensed at the rate of one dollar each. The company wrote letters to each of its offices and agents requesting that one brass slide plate from every machine in stock be sent to the company “to be stamped and numbered according to the new regulations.” It was also explained, “There will be two numbers on the machine, ours and Howe’s.”

1 Although I.M. Singer and Co. paid Howe and Bliss for 1500 machines made up until 7/1/1854, the serial numbers on the machines sold during the summer of 1854 are upper 3000’s and low 4000’s.

2 I.M. Singer and Co. sold 21 machines between the time the agreement was made, 7/1/1854 and the date Clark and Singer turned over the notes to Howe and Bliss, on 7/24/1854, after securing the required funds from Nathan Clark, Edward Clark’s father, on 7/22/1854.

The Sewing Machine Combine or Combination, a brief history

Although the agreement between Singer and Howe ended the immediate threat and explains the addition of the second serial number, this conclusion did not end the courtroom battles of I.M. Singer & Co. So many different concepts were involved in producing an efficient sewing machine, and so many different men claimed rights to the individual features, that it became impossible to build a machine that did not infringe someone else’s patent. Even Elias Howe could not manufacture a machine, as his original machine was not very practical, he would need to significantly improve upon his device, which could not be done without infringing upon other patents. Additional suits and countersuits were begun.

The tremendous amount of litigation at this time became known as the “Sewing Machine War.” It ended when a brilliant idea was formed by Orlando Potter, a lawyer involved with the Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Company. During an important trial in Albany, New York, involving Howe, I.M. Singer & Co., the Wheeler & Wilson and the Grover & Baker companies, Potter realized that if Howe’s patent was declared void that neither Howe nor the other firms involved in the lawsuit would have legal protection. He suggested that a patent pool be formed of the most important sewing machine patents, thereby allowing the trade to concentrate on the production and sales of machines instead of the proceedings of the courtroom. Howe objected, as he felt he had much to lose. He was getting up to $25 per machine from some companies but would get much less if this combination were formed. However, he also realized that if he were to lose this and a succession of other court cases that he may end up with nothing, so he finally relented, but insisted that he receive more money than the other firms. The first patent pool was now official, and the Sewing Machine Combination was formed. The lawsuit was withdrawn, which aided in validating Howe’s patent, and he was placed as the figurehead for the concern.

Well over one hundred patents had been granted relating to the sewing machine and its attachments by this time, and on October 24, 1856, a pool was agreed upon made up of the nine most important, patented by John Bachelder, A.B. Ely, W. Fitzgerald, Elias Howe, Morey & Johnson, Isaac M. Singer, and A.B. Wilson. The patents not owned by the four companies were licensed or bought by them so that a complete domination of the trade could be made. The combination paid $4,000 for an exclusive license to Bachelder’s patent, No. 6439, dated May 8, 1849, which claimed an endless feed belt. Since he did not limit himself to a specific method for the feed, which left the possibilities wide open, Bachelder’s broad patent would eventually prove to be an incredibly good investment. A.B. Wilson’s patent was unquestionably the most important mechanically. His ingenious device, the reciprocating or four-motion feed, became the most commonly used device for advancing the cloth.

This complex agreement did not allow all parties involved, whether members of the combination or not, to freely manufacture machines that utilized any or all of the nine patents, the contract was very specific about which firms were allowed to use which patents. This guaranteed that everyone would continue manufacturing the machine they were currently producing, thus keeping the industry relatively status quo for a period.

When the Combine agreement ended in 1877 with the expiration of its last patent, the second number was maintained but with different purposes. John Langdon observed that the second number may have been switched to a factory production number and speculated that they may have even been used to distinguish between decal set runs.

Three serial numbers?

The database also includes two cases of general use of a third number to track production of a specific type/model: the Family [Turtleback] (1858 to about 1862—including re-work) and the Letter-A (1859 through 1865); plus a couple other instances (apparently prototypes or demonstration machines). For the purposes of the database, the most important number is still the first, but the second numbers are included in order to allow possible further research.

Organization:

The serial number database as presented is organized into thirteen columns:

• A and B: Serial number range for a particular Class or Model machine
• C and D: Second or third serial if present and identified
• E: Class or Model
• F: Quantity allotted
• G: Date allotted
• H: Factory assigned
• I: Notes and remarks
• J: Number of reported machines in the serial number range
• K – M: Production by year as reported by Cooper/Singerco/UK Allotment figures respectively

Further information regarding very early serial numbers:

Krisi has also created a database of individual sales and shipping entries from Singer documents which she has generously allowed to be posted on the ISMACS website, along with a short introductory paragraph.

Updates and current work:

The chart will be updated once or twice a year as further information is submitted. Any new submissions should be emailed to Bob at singerpre1900@ismacs.net. Submissions should include serial numbers, model identification, and pictures, as well as attribution information (whose picture is it, where did you see it, etc). The date of the latest update is indicated in the file name.

Thanks and recognition

We would like to recognize and thank John, Martin, Bob, Mark Irving, Lee King, Andrew Orme, Sharon Funderburk, Suzanne Revell, Doug Robertson, Craig Ross, Krisi Santilla, Dave Selby, Calvin Armerding, Uwe Krueger, and many others for all the hard work they’ve done to create this important historical work. Apologies in advance to anyone we missed.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to host the results on the ISMACS pages and look forward to the regular updates and the ongoing improvement of the database. Any of the information or files may be downloaded, used, or reproduced for personal use but may not be published elsewhere without both the express permission of the Board of ISMACS and with attribution.

Article written by ISMACS Chair, Calvin Armerding, based upon the work of Robert Leininger & John Langdon

John's Obituary